safe_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

In the absence of annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it refuses deletion if the symbol is still referenced (listing references), allows override via force=true, and operates with a preview mode by default (apply=true writes to disk). This transparency helps the agent understand the tool's safety mechanisms.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, packing critical information into two sentences. It uses capitalization for emphasis and front-loads the key purpose ('Delete a named declaration') while efficiently conveying behavioral details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main behavior and key parameters but lacks explanation of the return value (e.g., what the preview returns) and omits descriptions for three parameters (projectPath, backend, maxResults). While the essential safety features are well-documented, the overall completeness is hindered by these gaps, especially given the tool's complexity with 8 parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 63% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of 'force' (overrides refusal) and 'apply' (writes to disk), which are not fully detailed in the schema. However, it does not address the remaining 37% (projectPath, backend, maxResults), leaving some ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it deletes a named declaration, using the verb 'Delete' and specifying the resource. It also distinguishes itself from alternative actions like 'Edit-deleting' by emphasizing safety features, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool ('USE INSTEAD OF Edit-deleting it') and explains its behavior under different conditions (refuses if referenced, force overrides, preview vs. apply). This provides clear guidance on usage and when to apply force or apply modes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.